Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Domestic Relations – Breach of Contract

Listen to this article

Hammer v. Hammer (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-072-12, 6 pp.) (James E. Lockemy, J.) Appealed from Richland County Circuit Court. (L. Casey Manning, J.) S.C. App. Full-text opinion.

Holding: Even though, in settling the issues arising from the break-up of their marriage, the parties entered into a contract, that contract was part of their divorce proceeding; in fact, it was merged into a family court order. Therefore, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the plaintiff-husband’s action for a declaratory judgment and other relief in connection with the contract.

We affirm the circuit court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

The defendant-wife’s answer, motion to dismiss and counterclaims raised the issue of the circuit court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction; moreover, subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time and by any means. We reject the husband’s contention that the wife failed to file a proper motion pursuant to Rule 7(b), SCRCP.

The circuit court referred to a sealed order from the family court. The sealing order expressly provides that the parties and the court can access and use the sealed file in “litigation between [the husband and the wife].” Because the husband’s complaint was a continuation of the marital dispute, the circuit court properly referenced the family court record.

We reject the husband’s argument that the May 2008 contract clearly set forth the parties’ intent that the family court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the contract. In fact, the May 2008 contract and the family court’s May 2008 order expressly vest the family court with jurisdiction to enforce the contract. Furthermore, under Moseley v. Mosier, 297 S.C. 348, 306 S.E.2d 624 (1983), the family court has continuing subject matter jurisdiction over the claims raised in the husband’s amended complaint.

Finally, we disagree with the husband’s contention that the circuit court erred in finding the family court had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction. The May 2008 contract was part of the parties’ divorce proceeding. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-690, the family court has exclusive jurisdiction over contracts relating to property in a divorce proceeding. Moreover, by merging the May 2008 contract into the family court’s order, the family court transformed it from a contract between the parties into a decree of the court.

As part of the family court order, the agreement is fully subject to the family court’s authority to interpret and enforce its own decrees. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the husband’s complaint.

Affirmed.